Appeal No. 2001-1018
Application 09/211,688
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9, mailed July 11, 2000) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8, filed
June 5, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed September
12, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Before turning to the examiner’s rejections, we note that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007